The use of volume-assured pressure support noninvasive ventilation in acute and chronic respiratory failure: a practical guide and literature review

Mark Pluym, Asad Kabir, A. Gohar
{"title":"The use of volume-assured pressure support noninvasive ventilation in acute and chronic respiratory failure: a practical guide and literature review","authors":"Mark Pluym, Asad Kabir, A. Gohar","doi":"10.1080/21548331.2015.1110475","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) is an important tool in the management of acute and chronic respiratory failure. Traditionally, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP) have been the most commonly utilized modes for these purposes. Newer hybrid modes of NPPV, such as average volume-assured pressure support (VAPS), combine the properties of both volume- and pressure-controlled NPPV and represent another tool in the treatment of acute and chronic respiratory failure. Evidence demonstrating the superiority of VAPS over BPAP is sparse, but there have been studies that have demonstrated comparable efficacy between the two modes. The use of VAPS in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure has shown better clearance of CO2 compared to BPAP, due to its property of delivering a more assured tidal volume. This, however, did not lead to a decrease in hospital-days or improved mortality, relative to BPAP. The studies evaluating VAPS for chronic respiratory failure involve small sample sizes but have shown some promise. The benefits noted with VAPS, however, did not translate into increased survival, decreased hospitalizations or improved quality of life compared to BPAP. The limited evidence available suggests that VAPS is equally effective in treating acute and chronic respiratory failure compared to BPAP. Overall, the evidence to suggest superiority of one mode over the other is lacking. There is a need for larger studies before firm conclusions can be made.","PeriodicalId":75913,"journal":{"name":"Hospital practice","volume":"43 1","pages":"299 - 307"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21548331.2015.1110475","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21548331.2015.1110475","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

Abstract Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) is an important tool in the management of acute and chronic respiratory failure. Traditionally, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP) have been the most commonly utilized modes for these purposes. Newer hybrid modes of NPPV, such as average volume-assured pressure support (VAPS), combine the properties of both volume- and pressure-controlled NPPV and represent another tool in the treatment of acute and chronic respiratory failure. Evidence demonstrating the superiority of VAPS over BPAP is sparse, but there have been studies that have demonstrated comparable efficacy between the two modes. The use of VAPS in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure has shown better clearance of CO2 compared to BPAP, due to its property of delivering a more assured tidal volume. This, however, did not lead to a decrease in hospital-days or improved mortality, relative to BPAP. The studies evaluating VAPS for chronic respiratory failure involve small sample sizes but have shown some promise. The benefits noted with VAPS, however, did not translate into increased survival, decreased hospitalizations or improved quality of life compared to BPAP. The limited evidence available suggests that VAPS is equally effective in treating acute and chronic respiratory failure compared to BPAP. Overall, the evidence to suggest superiority of one mode over the other is lacking. There is a need for larger studies before firm conclusions can be made.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用容量保证压力支持无创通气在急慢性呼吸衰竭:实用指南和文献综述
无创正压通气(NPPV)是治疗急慢性呼吸衰竭的重要手段。传统上,持续气道正压通气(CPAP)和双水平气道正压通气(BPAP)是最常用的通气方式。较新的NPPV混合模式,如平均容量保证压力支持(VAPS),结合了容量和压力控制的NPPV的特性,代表了治疗急性和慢性呼吸衰竭的另一种工具。证明VAPS优于BPAP的证据很少,但已经有研究表明两种模式之间的疗效相当。与BPAP相比,在急性高碳酸血症性呼吸衰竭中使用VAPS显示出更好的CO2清除率,因为它具有提供更有保证的潮汐容量的特性。然而,与BPAP相比,这并没有导致住院天数减少或死亡率提高。评估VAPS治疗慢性呼吸衰竭的研究样本量很小,但已经显示出一些希望。然而,与BPAP相比,VAPS的益处并没有转化为生存率的提高、住院次数的减少或生活质量的改善。有限的证据表明,与BPAP相比,VAPS在治疗急性和慢性呼吸衰竭方面同样有效。总的来说,缺乏证据表明一种模式比另一种模式优越。在得出确定的结论之前,需要进行更大规模的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Benign acute myositis in an adult: case-based review. Hospitalists' COVID-19 management roles in hospitals without infectious disease specialists. Cardiac rehabilitation. Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 variants B.1.617: host tropism, proteolytic activation, cell-cell fusion, and neutralization sensitivity. How could perioperative anxiety be addressed via surgical team communication approaches? Findings from a scoping review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1